Exploring Materials Development of English Curricula in Indonesia:

A Content Analysis Study

Ratna Sari Dewi

, Desi Nahartini

, Dede Puji Setiono

and Imam Subchi

UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: Curriculum; Material Development; 2013 Curriculum.

Abstract: Curriculum implementation is based on the learners’ potential, development, and condition to master useful

competency. Learners must have quality educational services and opportunity to freely, dynamically, and

comfortably express themselves. With these basic principles of curriculum implementation, teachers are

demanded to have the know-how to teach. Unfortunately, when Indonesian English teachers teach their

students,they mostly rely on using available textbooks. However, such learning materials which are

ideallysuitable for the needs ofthe students are not always available. This situation should not discourage

teachers as far as they have the objectives of the teaching. To know what English teachers should teach,

teachers have to explore the materials development intended in curriculum. This study aims to know: 1)

how English materials development is constructed within the latest curriculum in Indonesia,how materials

of English subject in senior high school are developed in K13 in senior high school are in the two recent

curriculums. This research employed a qualitative approach by using content analysis method. The data

obtained through questionnaire, document analysis, and observation. This research’s findings showed that

the development of ELT Material Development in Indonesia from 2013 Curriculum is not followed by the

changing of approaches used by teacher in classroom. Teachers tend to teach more grammar and structure

separately and explicitly out of their communicative competence. Teachers’ habitual and their previous

experiences influence the way of their teaching. Therefore, the government’s policy to certify teacher is

very crucial in developing ELT syllabus and further for providing ‘effective teaching’ as part of curriculum

development.

1 INTRODUCTION

Curriculum serves as the substance that gives the

soul to learning process. Curriculum should be

primarily based on the consideration of promoting

learners’ interest in identifying and developing their

full potential. The term curriculum is used here to

refer to the overall plan or design for a subject and

how the content for a Subject is transformed into a

blueprint for teaching and learning which enables

the desired learning outcomes to be achieved

(Richard, 2013; Sugiharto, 2013).

Since the planning of the curriculum should be

set based on the students’ need, the changing of the

curriculum as periodically is a must from era to era.

A number of principles in curriculum design cannot

be neglected (Johnson, 1989; Brown, 1995).Then,

materials of the instruction should follow the

curriculum as it is the most easily noticed as the

mark of the changing (Anderson et al, 2010)

In the history of Indonesia's education, national

education curriculum has experienced many

changes, namely in the years 1947, 1952, 1964,

1968, 1975, 1984, 1994, 2004, 2006 and the latest is

2013. In ten years ago in Indonesia there were

several factors which led to the movement for a

competency-based and decentralized curriculum.

The first factor is that it has something to do with

the implementation of regional autonomy around the

end of 1990. The curriculum which has been

formally made by the government is still considered

to have many weaknesses caused by the treatment of

students who are considered the same throughout

Indonesia although religion, culture, language and

potential of individuals are different (Sanjaya, 2005;

Suderadjat, 2004; Us & Harmi, 2011; Utomo, 2005).

The second factor is that in the curriculum field

most of the national and international results are

considered bad. For example, Quoted from (Sanjaya,

2010) about the World Bank it was explained that

Dewi, R., Nahartini, D., Setiono, D. and Subchi, I.

Exploring Materials Development of English Curricula in Indonesia: A Content Analysis Study.

DOI: 10.5220/0009926813031310

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 1303-1310

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

1303

based on the survey, for four years student reading

skills were the lowest compared to all Asian

countries. The unsettled integrated curriculum in

Indonesia also became the issues.

Considering the needs and the demands on the

English material in every changing of the

curriculum, English material instruction logically

also should be developed (Brown 1995).

Unfortunately, the changing of curriculum in

Indonesia let say the two latest curriculums; school

based curriculum 2006/ KTSP and

curriculum 2013/ K13 didn’t clearly tell about

the material development of English Subject.

1.1 Curriculum 2013

Curriculum 2013 was officially launched on July

15, 2013 in ministry of Education and Culture.

While, in Ministry of Religion it was begun in July

2014. Basically the curriculum in 2013 is similar to

the former curriculum, curriculum 2006 or

Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP), with

some differences. There is a new definition of

curriculum content applied for the 2013 Curriculum

such as Kompetensi Dasar (basic competencies) and

Kompetensi Inti (core competencies). In addition,

the knowledge utilization of KI is from the new

taxonomy of educational objective developed by

Marzano and (Kendall, 2007).

In terms of the process dimension (the design of

learning process in a curriculum), Curriculum 2013

advocates student active learning with the scientific

approach model. The model has five activities which

should be developed in the learning-teaching

process; observing, questioning,

exploring/experimenting, analyzing, and

communicating.

Each of these activities is considered as a

competency and, therefore,

it should be planned and assessed.Regarding to

the assessment, the 2013 Curriculum advocates the

use of1 - 4 to score the students works and transform

these scores to A, B, C, and D replacing the very

long tradition 1-10 scale.

1.2 Material Development

Materials development is both a field of study

and a practical undertaking. As a field it studies the

principles and procedures of the design,

implementation and evaluation of language teaching

materials’ (Tomlinson 2001: 66).

In the notion of curriculum design and material

development Nunan (2001), proposed six principles

of material design; first, English language material

should be contextualized clearly to the curriculum

they serve, second, English language materials

should be authentic in terms of text and task, third,

English language material should stimulate

interaction, fourth, English language material should

allow learners to focus on formal aspect of language.

Fifth, English language material should encourage

learners to develop learning skill and skills in

learning, and sixth, English language material

should encourage learners to apply their developing

language skills to the world beyond the classroom.

As a practical undertaking it refers to anything

which is done by writers, teachers or learners to

provide sources of language input, to exploit those

sources in ways which maximize the likelihood of

intake and to stimulate purposeful output: in other

words the supplying of information about and/or

experience of the language in ways designed to

promote language learning.

Ideally the ‘two aspects of materials

development are interactive in that the theoretical

studies inform and are informed by the development

and use of classroom materials’. In developing

materials for any aspect of language learning,

whether it be a skill- based course in listening,

speaking, reading or writing or an integrated-skills

basic series, the writer’s understanding of language

and language use will have a major impact on

material’s design, since it will play a role in

determining the goals the writer sets for the

materials, the focus of the materials themselves and

the activities within them (Richard, 2005).

1.3 Material Development based on

Curriculum 2013

In Curriculum 2013, the government then sets

the Graduate Competency Standards (SKL) through

Permendiknas Number 54 Year 2013. The Graduate

Competency Standards (SKL) is a criteria of

graduate qualification that includes attitude,

knowledge, and skills. Then SKL is translated into

the form of Core Competence (KI), then translated

again into the form of Basic Competence (KD). The

required KIs and KDs are described in the following

paragraphs (Permendikbud No.60 / 2014).

Grounded on the background above, a set of

research questions guides the current study:

1. How the teachers of senior high school

within Curriculum 2013 construct materials

development?

2. How is the class performance in using the

material development in both curricula?

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1304

KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan)

or School-Based Curriculum (SBC) is an operational

educational programs that is planned and actualized

at each instructive organization (school). In light of

the Minister of National Education Regulation

(Permendiknas) number multi year 2006, there are

various parts canvassed in School-Based Curriculum

(KTSP), for example, first, the goals of instruction

organization; second, the structure and substance of

School-Based Curriculum (KTSP); and (3)

scholastic logbook. (Hartoyo, 2011) refers to that

essentially the 2006 educational programs (KTSP) is

produced from standard of substance by schools

dependent on their specific situation and possibility.

Consequently, each school has an alternate route in

performing KTSP. The KTSP of one school ought

not be equivalent to different schools regardless of

whether it has a similar report program in light of

the fact that each school has distinctive qualities. In

spite of the fact that KTSP shifts among one and

different schools, government gives a few controls

expressed in Governmental Regulation (PP) No.19,

2005 concerning National Standard of Education

(SNP) on May 16, 2005 for example, standard of

substance and standard of ability of alumni

(Hartoyo, 2011). In KTSP, when building up their

schedule, instructors should initially recognize the

normal abilities gave in the Curriculum Policies

archive. Educators at that point decide the substance

of each branch of knowledge, instructional

strategies, sort of appraisal, learning markers and

materials that will offer understudies the chance to

meet the normal capabilities (BSNP, 2006).

Instructional techniques picked by educators are

prescribed to be understudy focus and include

different dynamic learning strategies (BSNP, 2006).

Competency-based educational programs

(KTSP) in the Indonesian setting seems, by all

accounts, to be characterized extensively, as the

Curriculum Policies and Curriculum Guidelines

propose, by expected skills grasping three learning

spaces (BSNP, 2006). These three domains,

cognitive, affective and psychomotor, are drawn

from Bloom‟s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). The

cognitive domain is concerned with intellectual

skills, being divided into six levels of complexity,

moving from the lowest order of thinking to the

highest. These are knowledge, comprehension,

application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

Knowledge concerns remembering of previously

learned material and is described by using

operational verbs which are measurable such as

memorise, recall or name. Comprehension deals

with the ability to demonstrate understanding of

facts and ideas. Application refers to the ability to

use information and materials to solve problems and

to respond to concrete situations. Analysis involves

identifying and analysing patterns, organising ideas

and recognising trends, while synthesis requires the

learner to use existing concepts to create new ideas,

designs and inventions. Finally, evaluation is

characterised by comparison and evaluation of ideas.

The affective domain deals with attitudes,

motivation, willingness to participate, and valuing of

what is being learned. There are five levels in the

affective domain moving through the lowest order

processes to the highest. They are receiving,

responding, valuing, organising and characterising.

Receiving relates to the students‟ willingness to

listen or to pay attention. Responding refers to

students‟ active participation in the learning process.

Valuing is concerned with the values students attach

to objects, ideas or experiences and their acceptance

or rejection of particular attitudes or actions.

Organising refers to students‟ willingness to

synthesise values, information, and ideas and

accommodate them within their own schema, and

characterising deals with students‟ willingness to

change their behaviour to reflect their values and

themselves.

The keep going area, psychomotor, centers

around learning through aptitudes advancement and

execution identifying with manual assignments and

physical development. Under the KTSP, the

psychomotor area demonstrate given to educators in

PD was the one presented by (Dave,1975). This

space incorporates impersonation, control, accuracy,

enunciation, and naturalization. Impersonation is

worried about watching or replicating conduct.

Control identifies with performing specific activities

by adhering to guidelines and rehearsing every one.

Exactness centers around understudies playing out

an undertaking or action with aptitude and to

elevated requirements without help. Explanation is

worried about performing exercises that relate and

consolidate important aptitudes to accomplish

amicable and reliable outcomes. Naturalization

alludes to very gifted execution which is performed

normally and frequently consequently. These

learning areas outline the expert advancement gave

to instructors about the idea of capabilities and how

to consolidate these abilities into the prospectus

(Depdiknas, 2007).

Exploring Materials Development of English Curricula in Indonesia: A Content Analysis Study

1305

2 METHODS

The approach used in this study is a qualitative

approach with the use of content analysis as the

method. The content is analyzed by using six

principles of materials design specified by Nunan

and his theory about curriculum, the study intend to

investigate each curriculum (KTSP and K13)

towards English Subject material. To support the

theory of Nunan, the theory proposed by Tomlinson

also will be used. In addition, the data used in the

study are the documents in curriculums and some

textbooks used for senior high school published by

the Ministry of National Education (MONE) of the

Republic of Indonesia.

The instruments used in this study are documents

analysis, interview sheets and classroom observation

sheet. The document analysis sheet is made from

Nunan and Richard’s theory about Material

Development with some adaptations and

modifications. The interview sheet is constructed by

considering Tomlinson’s research findings about

material development. The interview was done to

some English teachers of senior high schools in

South Tangerang and Jakarta. The instruments are

validated to check the construct validity and the

reliability of the instruments.

3 FINDING

3.1 Questionnaire Result

According to the results of the open

questionnaire, the teachers generally point out same

idea that the main characteristic of School-based

curriculum (KTSP) is the authority of the school to

develop, design and implement this curriculum

based on the school’s contexts and potentials. Also,

the aspects of cognitive, psychomotoric and

affective become the main focus in this curriculum.

Nevertheless, only is cognitive aspect clearly

defined to be assessed in the curriculum.

Unlike KTSP, for teachers, K13 states

straightforwardly to use scientific approach in

teaching by operating 5M (Mengamati (observe),

Mengumpulkan data (collecting data),

Menanya (questioning), Mengkomunikasikan

(communicating), and Mengasosiasi (associating)).

Furthermore, three teaching models are offered to be

implemented by the teachers at their school despite

of any diversity in students’ level competence and

background, namely discovery learning, problem

based learning and project based learning.

In the given the situation of some changes from

KTSP to K13 above, six teachers find the materials

in reference textbooks to be generally same or have

no significant difference. However, one teacher

considers the material in K13 reference textbook as

a perfection of the textbook in the previous

curriculum. Nevertheless, with generally same

materials, five teachers note some differences such

as reduction in certain materials, teaching method to

be implemented, the use of High Order of Thinking

Skills (HOTS), an emphasis on character education,

and the structure or order of the materials.

Most of the teachers, thirty one teachers to be

precise, use the textbook published by the

government as their main source of reference. In

other words, the government textbook still has a

prominent role for teachers in material development

as well as textbooks published by public

publishers.There are twelve out of those thirty one

teachers use textbooks from other public publishers

as their additional references such as Erlangga

(entitled Lokahead, Pathway, Bupena), Grafindo,

Yudhistira, and Windows on the World.

The reference used by teachers is not only

limited on textbook but also other sources in order to

enrich students’ knowledge as mentioned by one

teacher.Some other sources are video, film, social

media (newspaper) and internet. A lot of advantages

can be benefited from internet such as web search

engine (Google), Youtube, and other websites (e.g.

edition of Cambridge Advanced Learner’s

Dictionary). A number of materials are available

therein the form of text, audio or video.

The next part is an investigation of using

authentic materials for teaching and learning in class

such as song, film, poems, newspaper, magazine or

internet. According to teachers’ responses, all

teachers have ever used any kind of those materials

in class. The teachers use this kind of materials by

firstly planning the lesson in line with the syllabus

and then look for further materials in the internet

after textbook.

In the classroom teaching, there are several

techniques that the teacher uses in using the

materials such as analysing the song, film watching,

reading newspaper or magazine and discuss the

moral value within. Second, teachers assign students

to work in group and do a research on particular

topic being discussed.

In spite of several different characteristics

between KTSP and Curriculum 2013, twenty one

teachers view that the material is not different or

generally the same even though clear distinctions

exist in terms of the teaching approach, method and

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1306

techniques in teaching, and an emphasis on students’

character building and21st century learning skills

(4C) .In fact, regardless of the similarity of the

materials, two teachers find the material of K13

more developed and completed by providing more

examples than KTSP.

Unlike those teachers, the other eight teachers

are aware of the focus on 21

Century Learning

Skills and Scientific Approach in K13 as a clear

difference in the material of both curriculums. Thus,

this is necessary for teachers to look for the material

which is able to facilitate students to be more

creative and productive by providing factual

material, practical examples, unlike KTSP which

provides more theories.

Also, the material needs to be relevant with the

teaching procedures to be implemented with

required certain quality of questions (HOTS).

During the teaching, teacher needs to make sure that

the material makes possible to strengthen students’

character of nationality, religiosity, mutual help

(gotong-royong), caring, cooperation, confidence.

Eventually, the material should enable teachers to

assess students’ behaviour and social skill, not only

the knowledge aspect.

After investigating the teachers of view on the

materials used in KTSP and K13, the next question

aims to hear about any suggestions would be made

by the teachers. Unfortunately, eighteen teachers

give no response to this question. Nonetheless, seven

teachers say that adding more portion to the current

material is unnecessary since it is already enough for

some teachers and many for the others. Teachers

have different opinion in which or what materials to

be added in learning. The addition of material is

necessary especially in that requires bigger points of

graduate competence standard. Besides, the material

for high school students are too easy so more

materials are essential to build better understanding

among the students, especially in language structure.

Meanwhile, one teacher views that the idea of

adding materials might be different from one teacher

to the teachers according to their teaching ideology

and the difficulty level of particular materials for

students, such as text genres.

As previously mentioned that lesson planning is

an initial step for teachers to develop their teaching

materials. In this part, sixteen teachers leave the

answer sheet blank. However, according to the

response of seven teachers, it shows that relatively

the lesson planning in both curriculums is the same.

The fundamental difference of both is the teaching

in class with the scientific approach, character

building, literacy and 4C as main characteristics of

K13 curriculum as mentioned by three teachers.

Even though those teachers claim the lesson

planning generally the same, the other teachers are

aware of several aspects they need to think of in

lesson planning according to terms and conditions

applied in the curriculum as mentioned by one of the

teachers. The lesson plan shows that K13 has

already determined the standard to be achieved by

the students unlike KTSP in which the competence

match with students’ need and potentials. In more

detail, several teachers stated that graduate

competency standard (SKL) in K13 requires

teachers to describe the competence according to the

8 process

Once the lesson plan is well planned consistent

with the terms and conditions of the curriculum with

specific learning objectives, eleven teachers search

for more relevant materials from other sources such

as internet, book, discussion of professional

development program with subject teachers

(Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran – MGMP), or

discuss with other English teachers. One teacher

mentioned the use of evaluation of previous learning

is also useful in order to develop materials for more

effective learning.

3.2 Document Analysis Result

The discussion of documents analyses on the

material development of both curricula was referred

to the six principles of material design by Nunan

(2001). According to the data of the document

analyses gained by analyzing the lesson plans and

the materials from both curricula (KTSP and K13)

given by the 20 selected teachers to their students,

the results proved in the following:

a) The materials were contextualized to the

served curriculum.

b) 80% of the materials given were not authentic

(taken from English textbooks or internet)

c) The material provided most likely stimulated

interaction in spite of its inauthenticity.

d) 70% teachers led the students to focus on

formal aspect of language, while the rests just

focused on the topic and examples.

e) 70% teachers encouraged students to develop

their learning skills and strategies in learning

by providing them with the confidence to

persist in their attempts to find solutions

when they have initial difficulties in

communicating.

Exploring Materials Development of English Curricula in Indonesia: A Content Analysis Study

1307

f) The materials given by the teachers were

considered to be encouraging students to

apply their developing language skills in their

daily activities andsituations, and their future.

3.3 Class Performance Analysis Result

Before the teaching learning process, the lesson

plan made by the English teachers as the scoring

criteria based on the observation checklist from

MONE. The teachers analyzed whether the lesson

plan arranged is in line with curriculum 2013 or

not.There are 25 components of the lesson plan

grouped in nine aspects: (1) Lesson identity, (2)

Formulation of the indicators, (3) Formulation of the

learning objectives,

(4) Learning material, (5) Source of learning, (6)

Media of the learning process, (7) Model of the

learning, (8) Scenario of the learning, and (9)

Scoring.

According to the result of the assessment on

teachers’ lesson plans, the teacher have planned the

lesson very well by putting down all 25 components

listed in nine aspects above and corresponding to the

requirements of the curriculum. This finding is in

line with Suparlan (2003) who proposed that lesson

plan is to be made as detailed as possible in

accordance with the needs and demands in

thesyllabus.

Basically, the teachers used the book When the

English Rings the Bell as the main resource in

teaching. However, a few discrepancies were found.

First, teachers did not include the lesson objectives

in the lesson plan documents. Second, there was no

clear description of allocated time for each activity

during the class.

During the teaching and learning process in the

classroom, students actively participated in

classroom activities by giving the opinion,

questioning, doing the task well, and answering

thequestion. Also, students paid attention to the

teacher. It was evidenced by students’ attention to

the teacher’s explanation, students’ enthusiasm,

students’ interest, classroom environment (happiness

in the teaching learningprocess). In team work,

students showed satisfactory performance by helping

the otherfriends, appreciating the other friends,

having solidarity, and being active in group. Last, in

terms of responsibility, students showed positive

responsibility among students during the class.

3.4 The Result of Teaching and

Learning Process Analysis

According to the observation in accordance with

the observation checklist by Depdikbud, the activity

used by the teacher was considered to be a good

activity by having a pre-activity which included an

explanation of the basic competence, and a

discussion connecting the current lesson to the

previous one. In main-activity, the teacher with

enthusiasm guided the students to do the task. Also,

the teacher encouraged students to be active, pay

attention and be responsible during the group work.

Last in the post-activity, the teacher guided the

students to communicate with friends in the group

and invited them to solve the problem together.

Nevertheless, the time allocation was not clearly

divided for each activity.

4 DISCUSSIONS

4.1 How the Teachers of Senior High

School within the Two Latest

Curriculums Construct Materials

Development

First of all, the analyses of results pointed out

that teachers were fully aware of the distinctions

between KTSP and K13. The most basic difference

is that KTSP is developed from standard of content

by the school based on its context and potentiality

(Hartoyo, 2011; Muslich, 2008, p.17, Suparlan,

2011, p.9). The teachers’ well understanding on this

distinction was interpreted in several different

features to consider which then written down in

planning the lesson as required by each curriculum.

The other difference is that K13 requires teachers

to implement the scientific approach in their

teaching by using three suggested learning models,

namely: discovery learning, problem based learning

and project based learning. As the very first step in

developing materials, the teachers have successfully

accomplished Nunan’s first principle by

contextualizing the materials to the curriculum.

In planning the lesson in order to develop the

materials, the results highlighted two points. First,

the teachers made use of the textbook provided by

the government as their main reference. The teachers

provided various reasons when further materials

after this textbook would be necessary, such as those

mentioned by Tomlinson (2001) that the used

materials should inform learners about the language,

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1308

be experiential by providing exposure to the

language in use, be elicitative by stimulating

language use, and be exploratory by facilitating

discoveries about language use.

This situation provided an evidence that a

textbook does not always meet the variety of

conditions in a language class (Ur, 1996; Richards,

2003). The type of the materials taken from other

sources varied among the teachers depending on

their view of language and learning to be

comprehended (Crawford in Richards-Renandya,

2002). Second, the teachers’ lesson plans were

generally well written. Unfortunately, teachers could

have planned their lessons in more detail by

describing the lesson objectives, estimated time

allocation of each activity and other sources used.

As mentioned, teachers primarily used the

materials from the government textbook with

intermittently looking further materials from other

sources. It brought up an idea for future researcher

to study more deeply how many percentage the other

sources is used in certain period of time. Among a

number of reasons provided by teachers in using

supporting materials (mostly from internet) after

textbook was their necessity as authentic materials to

support the learning by encouraging learners to

apply their developing language skills to the world

beyond the classroom as defined in Principle 6.

Those authentic materials could be in the form of

written (newspaper, magazine,) or spoken (video,

audio). As pointed out by Nunan (2001) that the text

specifically written for the classroom purpose

generally distort the language in some way. In fact,

the results of document analysis showed that

teachers used most of the materials from the internet

(but still with the texts specifically designed for

teaching in classrooms) and textbooks. This situation

suggests that teachers were fully concerned about

the essential of using authentic materials but did not

put it into practice. Thus, the Principle 2 that the

materials should be authentic in terms of text and

task requires an improvement.

4.2 How the Class Performance in

using the Material Development in

Both Curriculum

In the classroom, teachers followed the lesson

plan for the most part. In the same way as the lesson

had been planned before, the activity was divided

into pre-activity, main-activity and post-activity as

proposed by Sadiman (2000). Unfortunately,

unspecified time allocation of each activity in the

lesson plan impacted on the indeterminate length of

each activity during the class.

This situation could be a serious issue since

teachers need to make sure that certain competences

should be achieved by students for certain period of

time in one academic year. In addition, the

classroom did not last 2x40 minutes as expected in

the curriculum, but 2x35 minutes, in spite of a

suggestion that the effective of time allocation every

meeting in teaching learning process at Junior High

School is about 2x45 minutes to improve the quality

of the teacher in teaching learning process (Rusman,

2012).

During the classroom activities, the teachers

played an important role in order to support the

learning process among students in the

implementation of learning models according to the

scientific approach (Permendikbud 81A: 2013).

Teachers encouraged students so that students were

able to acquire the 5Ms ((Menanya (questioning),

Mengumpulkan data (collecting data), Mengasosiasi

(associating), Menyimpulkan (making conclusion)).

A number of roles that the teachers played, such

as motivating, encouraging, interacting, offering

suggestions, giving feedbacks etc., led highly

positive performance of most students. It was proved

by most students successfully met the lesson target

with a few of them reached the higher and the lower.

In line with Principle 5 that the material should

encourage learners to develop learning skill and

skills in learning, the material needed also to be

supported by teachers’ encouragement.

This encouragement is about how the teachers’

instruction could trigger the interaction between

students to students and between students to the

teachers so the interaction in Principle 3 is likely to

stimulate and happen. One of the important roles

played by the teachers is giving feedback during

teaching and learning activities in classroom,

especially in every step of 5M activity. Giving

feedback was worthwhile to emphasize the focus of

formal aspect of language which is comprised in the

materials according to Principle 4. Accordingly, the

students performed highly positive activeness,

attention, team work and responsibility.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this study is to investigate how the

teachers construct materials development within

Curriculum 2013 and how the class performance is

in using the material. The researcher used interview,

questionnaire, document analysis and classroom

Exploring Materials Development of English Curricula in Indonesia: A Content Analysis Study

1309

observation as the methods to conduct data

collection and data analysis.

The results found that the material development

in Curriculum 2013 has no significant difference

from its development in the previous development in

spite of a number of changes in the newest

curriculum. The use of materials in this kinds of

development facilitates students to perform well

during the teaching and learning process in the

classroom..

REFERENCES

Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. 1988. Curriculum

Inquiry, 18(4): Using textbooks and teachers’ guides:

A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher

educators.

Browns, J. D. (1995): The elements of language

curriculum: A systematic approach to program

development. Massachusets: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers.

Cohen, Louis, Laurence Manion, and Keith Morrison.

2005. Research Methods in Education (Fifth edition).

USA: The Taylor Francis E-Library.

Cooker, L. 2008. Self-access materials. In B. Tomlinson

(Ed.), English language learning materials: A critical

review .London, UK: Continuum.

Cunningsworth, A. 1984. Evaluating and selecting EFL

teaching material. London, UK: Heinemann

Cresswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research

Design: Choosing Among the Five Traditions.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., Anderson, N. J. 2010. A

principled approach to content-based materials

development for reading. In N. Harwood (ed.). English

language teaching materials: Theory and practice

,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions

of Language. London: Edward Arnold

Hartoyo. 2011. The Indonesian Quarterly 21(1) :

Curriculum Inquiry English Language Education in

Indonesia

Johnson, R. K. 1989. The Second language curriculum,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nastaran Chegeni & Nasrin Chegeni, ELT Voices –

India ( Vol . 3 Issue 4 ) | August 2013 Language

Curriculum Development and Importance of Needs

Analysis

Nunan, D. 1997. Designing and adapting materials to

encourage learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller

(Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language

learning .London, UK: Longman

Richard J C, 2013, RLEC Journal 44 (1): Curriculum

Approach in Language Teaching-Forward, Central and

Backward Design.

Sugiharto, S. 2013. The Indonesian Quarterly 41(3) :

Rethinking Globalization, Reclaiming the Local: A

Post-Colonial Perspective of English Language

Education in Indonesia.,

Wiggins G, McTighe J, 2006, Understanding by Design:

A Framework for Effecting Curricular Development

and Assessment. Alexandria: VA. Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1310